How Can I Understand the Bible? Installment 1
Under this heading we will be discussing such matters as illumination, hermeneutics (i.e. principles of interpretation), prerequisites for proper interpretation, Then we will move to the general divisions of the Bible including the six covenants, and seven dispensations. I will conclude this study of Bibliology with the distinctions between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology and I hope many will participate.
I think every believer agrees that illumination is the witness of the God (esp. the Holy Spirit) to the Word of God which enables the believer to understand its content. We have God's Word and we can pray as the Psalmist prayed, "Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works... Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments." (Ps. 119:27,73)
Let's compare the following verses as well:
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 16: 17)
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. (Acts 16: 14)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1Cor. 2:12-13).
Hermeneutics is a word that is (unfortunately) usually confined to the dusty halls of the seminary it simply means interpretation; that is, to explain or tell the meaning of or to present something in understandable terms. In this case we apply hermeneutics to the Bible. We endeavor to understand it and then explain it. Before we get started I must point out that there are two main views of biblical interpretation, and here lies the greatest divide between biblical thinking Christians today. Both start with the notion of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone as a premise, and up to this point both schools of thought could give a hearty “Amen!” to all we have affirmed on Bibliology thus far. However, as far as Bibliology is concerned this is where the two schools end in similarity as we will see.
Before, one “rips apart” their perceived “opponent” I would like to lay to rest many misconceptions with a heartfelt disclaimer. First this bloger not only appreciates and has benefited from many fine conservatives in each school, and not only have several in each camp earned my respect as gifted teachers, preachers, and servants in the work of the Lord, but I also have a deep love, and respect for my brothers and sisters in Christ, those who differ with me and those who do not, academically and personally! This goes for those near and far, present and absent. Therefore, if you wish to make comments (and I wish you would) please be as kind as possible and fair. I am growing in this way too; I see no point in bickering, but blessings and growth in understanding. I for one tend to be full of sarcasm; I will try to keep it on hold. Also bear in mind that we will circle back to these ideas again and again. We are not trying to be exhaustive here, but my desire is to begin to get our "theological" feet wet.
Keeping this disclaimer in mind I will present a little explaination and background of the two main ways biblical hermeneutics is understood.
The Allegorical Approach
The word allegory comes from the Greek allEgorein meaning to speak figuratively. According to Merriem-Webster it is "...the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence also: an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression." The adjective is allegorical and means "...having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text..."
The allegorical method of interpretation produces Covenant Theology and visa versa Covenant Theology necessitates some form of allegorical interpretation.
This is why; desiring to see Christ, and/or His plan of salvation as it relates to man in every passage, the allegorical interpreter must seek a deeper or hidden meaning of his text often claiming that the Bible is spiritual and must have a spiritual rendering (here we could discuss Origins theory of the trichotomy of man and how it effects this hermeneutical method). This method goes back to the Alexandrian school of thought around 200 AD. It is also known as the Soteriological or Christological approach to Scripture, though in recent years I have heard many try to say that they follow a doxological approach as it “relates” to salvation or Christ or the church. I don't think there is any argument on this point.
The Plain or Normal Approach
The plain and/or normal (not necessarily literal) method of interpretation produces Dispensational Theology.
This is why; each text is unfolded consistently in its plain or normal rendering. Seeking nothing but God's glory in every text, it continued throughout the history of biblical interpretation and was taught in the Antiochene school of thought around 200 AD. The word "doxology" means praise to God or glory to God, that is why this method of interpretation is also known as the Doxological approach to Scriptures.
The later in my view is the best approach because of its grammatical consideration of all the parts of the grammar of each text. It also takes into consideration the actual historical events of each text. Thirdly it is not without theological consideration, which is the teaching of God in each text and a comparison of Scripture with Scripture.
Getting the Most From Bible Study
There are some prerequisite for getting the most favorable results in ones interpretation of the Bible and therefore building ones relationship with our Lord. First to even have a Father/child relationship with God one must be saved, this is the only way one can claim to be a Christian in the biblical sense. Then, when reading the Bible the Christian must depend on the Holy Spirit as the Teacher. Thirdly, the Christian must be teachable and be willing to obey what is taught.
Here are some general principles of interpretation:
1. Interpret grammatically and historically.
2. Interpret according to the immediate and wider contexts.
3. Interpret in harmony with the whole Bible (cf. Scripture w/ Scripture).
When I get the opportunity to teach children’s Sunday school I often ask, "What color is your Bible?" Getting various responses a child will inevitably say "Red!" I will commend the child and tell the class that every Bible should be "read". What about you friend is your Bible read?
I think every believer agrees that illumination is the witness of the God (esp. the Holy Spirit) to the Word of God which enables the believer to understand its content. We have God's Word and we can pray as the Psalmist prayed, "Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works... Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments." (Ps. 119:27,73)
Let's compare the following verses as well:
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 16: 17)
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. (Acts 16: 14)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1Cor. 2:12-13).
Hermeneutics is a word that is (unfortunately) usually confined to the dusty halls of the seminary it simply means interpretation; that is, to explain or tell the meaning of or to present something in understandable terms. In this case we apply hermeneutics to the Bible. We endeavor to understand it and then explain it. Before we get started I must point out that there are two main views of biblical interpretation, and here lies the greatest divide between biblical thinking Christians today. Both start with the notion of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone as a premise, and up to this point both schools of thought could give a hearty “Amen!” to all we have affirmed on Bibliology thus far. However, as far as Bibliology is concerned this is where the two schools end in similarity as we will see.
Before, one “rips apart” their perceived “opponent” I would like to lay to rest many misconceptions with a heartfelt disclaimer. First this bloger not only appreciates and has benefited from many fine conservatives in each school, and not only have several in each camp earned my respect as gifted teachers, preachers, and servants in the work of the Lord, but I also have a deep love, and respect for my brothers and sisters in Christ, those who differ with me and those who do not, academically and personally! This goes for those near and far, present and absent. Therefore, if you wish to make comments (and I wish you would) please be as kind as possible and fair. I am growing in this way too; I see no point in bickering, but blessings and growth in understanding. I for one tend to be full of sarcasm; I will try to keep it on hold. Also bear in mind that we will circle back to these ideas again and again. We are not trying to be exhaustive here, but my desire is to begin to get our "theological" feet wet.
Keeping this disclaimer in mind I will present a little explaination and background of the two main ways biblical hermeneutics is understood.
The Allegorical Approach
The word allegory comes from the Greek allEgorein meaning to speak figuratively. According to Merriem-Webster it is "...the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence also: an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression." The adjective is allegorical and means "...having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text..."
The allegorical method of interpretation produces Covenant Theology and visa versa Covenant Theology necessitates some form of allegorical interpretation.
This is why; desiring to see Christ, and/or His plan of salvation as it relates to man in every passage, the allegorical interpreter must seek a deeper or hidden meaning of his text often claiming that the Bible is spiritual and must have a spiritual rendering (here we could discuss Origins theory of the trichotomy of man and how it effects this hermeneutical method). This method goes back to the Alexandrian school of thought around 200 AD. It is also known as the Soteriological or Christological approach to Scripture, though in recent years I have heard many try to say that they follow a doxological approach as it “relates” to salvation or Christ or the church. I don't think there is any argument on this point.
The Plain or Normal Approach
The plain and/or normal (not necessarily literal) method of interpretation produces Dispensational Theology.
This is why; each text is unfolded consistently in its plain or normal rendering. Seeking nothing but God's glory in every text, it continued throughout the history of biblical interpretation and was taught in the Antiochene school of thought around 200 AD. The word "doxology" means praise to God or glory to God, that is why this method of interpretation is also known as the Doxological approach to Scriptures.
The later in my view is the best approach because of its grammatical consideration of all the parts of the grammar of each text. It also takes into consideration the actual historical events of each text. Thirdly it is not without theological consideration, which is the teaching of God in each text and a comparison of Scripture with Scripture.
Getting the Most From Bible Study
There are some prerequisite for getting the most favorable results in ones interpretation of the Bible and therefore building ones relationship with our Lord. First to even have a Father/child relationship with God one must be saved, this is the only way one can claim to be a Christian in the biblical sense. Then, when reading the Bible the Christian must depend on the Holy Spirit as the Teacher. Thirdly, the Christian must be teachable and be willing to obey what is taught.
Here are some general principles of interpretation:
1. Interpret grammatically and historically.
2. Interpret according to the immediate and wider contexts.
3. Interpret in harmony with the whole Bible (cf. Scripture w/ Scripture).
When I get the opportunity to teach children’s Sunday school I often ask, "What color is your Bible?" Getting various responses a child will inevitably say "Red!" I will commend the child and tell the class that every Bible should be "read". What about you friend is your Bible read?
posted by J. Wendell at 6:45 AM
18 Comments:
Excellent post!
You might find The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermaneutics to be interesting. It came from the same people who did the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
By
Earl Flask, at 30/8/06 9:03 AM
I think much of the typology coming from older Dispensational writers might justifiably be described as allegory.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 30/8/06 12:06 PM
Yes Mr. Flask,
Not only interesting, but near flawless. Thanks for the link. I will have to revisit it, but I think there was one minor question I had with one small portion, and I think that was in the expositional notes if I recall (it’s been a while).
Hi Matthew~
To my chagrin, I have heard a good dispensational preacher or two fall on the sword of allegory without Scriptural validation (I think) to make an interesting sermon. Yet I have heard and read a great deal of allegory from the Covenant theologians, which is the basis for much of their “system” of thought. I will explain this a little more in a latter post for those unfamiliar with this vital issue. Thanks for the comment.
By
J. Wendell, at 30/8/06 4:48 PM
What, us Covenant Theology people? We're perfect.
Oh, what's that about 1 John saying we have no sin? Ah, never mind. :o)
By
Earl Flask, at 30/8/06 6:24 PM
Earl~ That letter was writen to both the dispensational and covenant ellect (cf. 1Jn. 2:2)
Sandra, this is my second request! Please stop spamming this blog.
By
J. Wendell, at 31/8/06 6:52 AM
Truly we must open Genesis 1:1 and start with a literal interpretation and stick to the literal interpretation. There is clearly much typology in the Bible and Paul himself uses it in Galations even making the point to interpret the differances and clearly make a distinction between Law and Grace.
I do find the Bible to be rich in Typology. I understand that pride can stem in these interpretive methods as well and I well note that, but I don't think that just because knowledge puffeth up, we should miss the fact that there is deep illumination in the Scriptures as well as the mind of God connnecting and communicating with the mind of man, making himself manifest to us. We do have a deep God and he has put things in the Scripture that are hard to understand; yet I believe he greatly desires we seek him out to know him more.
In fact the author of Hebrews encourages us to move away from the simple diet of the basics and moving on to deeper things. In fact he moves strait into the typology found in Melchizedek.
also...We do have to have typology in many places where a literal interpretation is impossible. Such as is the case in the Lord's supper where Romanism makes the interpretation literal, we fundamental believers see it as symbolic. We also had to see the typology found in the unblemished lamb or we may have missed the living Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Many things we must look for as the nation of Israel has missed some of the typology intended to open their eyes. They still ring the bell and wait for a literal return of Elijah when they missed the type cast made manifest in John the Baptist.
By
Bhedr, at 31/8/06 10:03 PM
Brian~
Thanks for your pertinent and insightful comment.
Yes, as one moves further on, we should learn to recognize types, symbols, prophecy, metaphors, anthropomorphisms, hyperboles, and so on, BUT I do not think we need to invent them from the Bible to prove or disprove any biblical idea. It seems that this sort of thing creeps up from time to time in greater and lesser degrees across the broad spectrum of biblical Christianity.
By
J. Wendell, at 1/9/06 6:39 AM
Amen. Well then I agree with you. One major inventive work in typology is the tie to the Covanental relationship that leads one to the teaching of Infant Baptism. This is where I part ways with Covanental thought.
I am Baptist Born, Baptist Bred and each day I need to be Baptist fed:-)
A little neanderthal traditional talk...but seriously from my own biblical understanding I am convicted to remain Baptist. I would prefer to be Independent Baptist but right now the only Church in our area is Southern Baptist. They may be somewhat independent from a heiarchy, but unfortunately in many cases sentimentally and financially they seem to have an unbiblical tie that sometimes perverts obedience.Allthough not always, but the temptation is definately there always. Thats just cutting it straight.
Nothing personal Earl on the Pado stuff. I just like to keep that umbilical chord seperated from the stretching of OT typology that encourages us to continue clipping foreskins by way of sprinkling.
By
Bhedr, at 1/9/06 1:27 PM
John good post. I would just say that I see a distinction, when you discuss illumination, between "understanding" what scripture is saying--and getting the "significance" of what it is saying. I would argue that the latter, significance, is in fact "illumination". I've read plenty of non-believers who "understand" the text of scripture by employing literary, grammatical, historico/socio tools of interpretation.
By
Bobby Grow, at 1/9/06 1:48 PM
Hi Brian,
Here is some expansive but fair minded reading on typology that you may find helpful.
Typology: A Summary Of The Present Evangelical Discussion
Thank you Bobby,
That is a very good way of stating it Amen!
By
J. Wendell, at 1/9/06 4:55 PM
Thanks so much John
By
Bhedr, at 1/9/06 6:04 PM
John, thanks for the clarification. I saw that, and I was just putting in a little poke of humor against myself. We covenant theology types often think we've solved all the issues in the Bible real neatly.
Bhedr, don't want to take a full dive into the Covenant wading pool, eh? :o)
By
Earl Flask, at 2/9/06 12:48 AM
Brian, I think I am going to use that article or parts of it in the far future… should the Lord tarry.
Earl,
I was playing off your obvious good natured humor. I should have added a wink at the end of the verse reference.
Have a great day brother.
By
J. Wendell, at 2/9/06 5:29 AM
BRRRRRR! Waters too cold brother
:-)
Thanks for looking past my Baptist neanderthal knee jerkiness.
I can be a serious Baptist at times, but I do agree with a point you made a while back that the same legal spirit can be present in some re-baptismal cases.
By
Bhedr, at 3/9/06 12:52 AM
BTW,
My knee jerk was rehersed humor as well...although at one time it wasnt...so it can be hard to tell.
By
Bhedr, at 3/9/06 12:54 AM
Hi Brian~
I did notice and I meant to mention that earlier.
Thanks for your balance of light humor and serious minded analysis I see your point about infant baptism and I do hope to bring this up in a later post. I do not think it is a serious error, but neither could it be a thoughtless following of tradition. IOW This is a well thought out practice not merely an observation of tradition. There are strengths to it and weaknesses; I will save the rest of my debating on this topic for that “later post”.
Have a good day!
By
J. Wendell, at 3/9/06 6:20 AM
Thanks for noticing John. I will look forward to your post. It is a most important topic.
All of your posts are well thought out and very instructive.
By
Bhedr, at 3/9/06 2:40 PM
BTW,
Infant Baptism may be well thought out...but I still think it to be quite a stretch.
However their are Godly IBers such as Dr Kennedy who do not pervert the gospel with it...As well as my JN Darby, John Calvinistic, Plymouth Brethren 2nd cousin who practices it as only a Baby Dedication of the Parents actually dedicating themselves to God.
By
Bhedr, at 3/9/06 2:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home